Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

'That choice is now his'

by Aaron Wherry on Friday, October 16, 2009 12:11pm - 54 Comments

Glen Pearson considers Barack Obama’s Nobel Prize, Stephen Harper and Michael Ignatieff.

Politics is desperately in need of game-changers – leaders who go for the impossible as opposed to the prudent, for principle over power, peace over pragmatism. Stephen Harper can never be that person because he’s an incrementalist, attempting not to change the channel but to just bore us with all the noise in hopes we won’t catch on to the subtle changes he’s introducing. To accomplish his agenda, he requires stealth. Michael Ignatieff is the only leader close enough to forming government who has the potential to inspire us once again. But for that to happen he mustn’t be so much defined by politics as transcending it. That choice is now his.

Tags: democracy, Glen Pearson, Michael Ignatieff, Nobel, Nobel Peace Prize, Ottawa, Stephen Harper

More by Aaron Wherry

http://intensedebate.com/people/VinceClortho VinceClortho

So the criticism is now incrementalist…it used to be Harper was a radical reformer…what wil it be tomorrow? Oh, we will go back to the hidden agenda, the radical reformer who only acts like an incrementalist. Goodness you need a program to keep all this straight.

I thought Pearson was decrying the personal only 2 weeks ago and now its down to the personal.

Despite his studied "I am above it all" personna Glenn Pearson reveals himseld as a partisan like all the rest. Clearly being sanctimonious couldnt stay under control any longer.

I have seen Obama, Ignatieff is no Obama.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/VinceClortho VinceClortho

So the criticism is now incrementalist…it used to be Harper was a radical reformer…what will it be tomorrow? Oh, we will go back to the hidden agenda, the radical reformer who only acts like an incrementalist. Goodness you need a program to keep all this straight.

I thought Pearson was decrying the personal only 2 weeks ago and now its down to the personal.

Despite his studied "I am above it all" personna Glenn Pearson reveals himseld as a partisan like all the rest. Clearly being sanctimonious couldnt stay under control any longer.

I have seen Obama, Ignatieff is no Obama.

http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

I have seen Obama, Ignatieff is no Obama.

Thank heavens for that! There is a chance that one day Ignatieff might lead a G7 country.

http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

"Politics is desperately in need of game-changers – leaders who go for the impossible as opposed to the prudent, for principle over power, peace over pragmatism."

Allow me to be glib for a moment: I thought that role was well-played by the NDP?

Seriously though, throwing prudence to the wind is how we end up with $60B deficits. Oh wait, we already have…
http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

Glen Pearson: Chicken Soup for the Commons.
knick

Link?
http://intensedebate.com/people/Ed_Sweeney Ed_Sweeney

Instead of some weak minded name calling, why not explain yourself?
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Ed_Sweeney Ed_Sweeney

Instead of some weak-minded name calling, why not explain yourself?
http://intensedebate.com/people/Ed_Sweeney Ed_Sweeney

Rae is really plan D. He previously lost to Ignatieff, who had lost to Dion, who had lost to Harper, and is now being reincarnated as leadership material.
Blues Clair

Knick, just go Chantal's blog. As a longtime Rae supporter, I'd welcome the change, but as Rae said earlier, coronations typically don't end well and it would be high comedy if the Liberals tried again to cake on the lipstick… then again those just released Angus/reid leadership scores for Ingatieff are devastating.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

One very encouraging aspect of the Left beginning to advocate for a "game-changer" is the revelation that the game is not going their way. Those who once loved Chretien for his incrementalist approach to politics now claim that Harper's incrementalist approach is not what the country needs.

The reality is that it's the direction of the incremental gains, not the fact that they are incremental, that has people like Pearson concerned. For someone like myself who has serious concerns about Harper's direction this is a good sign.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

One very encouraging aspect of the Left beginning to advocate for a "game-changer" is the revelation that the game is not going their way. Those who once loved Chretien for his incrementalist approach to politics now claim that Harper's incrementalist approach is not what the country needs.

The reality is that it's the direction of the incremental gains, not the fact that they are incremental, that has people like Pearson concerned. For someone like myself who has serious reservations about Harper's direction this is a good sign.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

One very encouraging aspect of the Left beginning to advocate for a "game-changer" is the revelation that the game is not going their way. Those who once loved Chretien for his incrementalist approach to politics now claim that Harper's incrementalist approach is not what the country needs.

The reality is that it's the direction of the incremental gains, not the fact that they are incremental, that has people like Pearson concerned. For someone like myself who has serious reservations as to whether Harper's direction is in the country's best interest, this is a good sign.
Jesse

The new jobs created were in construction and the public sector.

Of course Harper had something to do with that. They actually have data on the jobs that are created you know ? The numbers lost, the numbers created, part time, full time, public or private sector.

We're seeing a continued collapse in the private sector and Canada's economic action plan coming to the rescue with measures like the home renovation tax credit and a variety of infrastructure projects.

http://intensedebate.com/people/danby danby

"With little fanfare, the Harper government announced that last year it recorded the first annual budget defecit – $5.8 biliion – in over a decade"

It would appear that we were already in defecit before the recession (we were going to skirt) even landed. Did Harper have anything at all to do with that?

It seems that "boring, steady leadership" also means "can't tell the truth"

http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

One very encouraging aspect of the Left beginning to advocate for a "game-changer" is the revelation that the game is not going their way. Those who once loved Chretien for his incrementalist approach to politics now claim that Harper's incrementalist approach is not what the country needs.

The reality is that it's the direction of the incremental gains, not the fact that they are incremental, that has people like Pearson concerned. For righties like myself who have serious reservations as to whether Harper's direction is in the country's best interest, this is a good sign.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Ricard_S_Argent Richard_S_Argent

Who's calling anybody names? Read my comment again, you'll note that I said your statement was dumb, not you.

Personally, I think that if anyone needs to explain themselves it's the guy who just compared Barack Obama (and Michael Ignnatieff) to Stalin, Hitler and Mao…but that's just me.
http://intensedebate.com/people/SamDavies SamDavies

I read this, and I too wish to be inspired by a Liberal leadership that has teeth.

"Politics is desperately in need of game-changers – leaders who go for the impossible as opposed to the prudent, for principle over power, peace over pragmatism"

Sigh…..

Then I read from Michael Geist's blog about how the Liberals are lobbeying for watering down C-27, Canada's anti-spam legislation:

"The copyright lobby's interest in the bill has been simmering since its introduction, with lobbyists attending the committee hearings and working with Liberal and Bloc MPs to secure changes. The two core concerns arise from fears that the bill could prevent surreptitious use of DRM and block enforcement initiatives that might involve accessing users' personal computers without their permission."

Sigh……

I've wanted to believe, but it seems like things are the same old?
knick

I must be internet-challenged -
I went here: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/columnists/946…
but couldn't find anything about a 'Plan B'.

jarrid

It's actually on her blog at the French magazine L'Actualité, le blogue de Chantal Hébert.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Ed_Sweeney Ed_Sweeney

Where do I compare Obama to Stalin, Hitler, Mao et al.?

I questioned Pearson's premise that we need game changers who go for the impossible, rather than choosing leaders for what they stand for and their ability to deliver their plan. I would say Pearson is completely flawed in his assessment that Ignatieff and Obama are not pragmatists.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Ricard_S_Argent Richard_S_Argent

You did nothing of the sort….maybe you are making that observation NOW, but you certainly weren't when you said "Yeah we need big thinkers in government, men of action, like Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Franco, Kim Il-sung… "

Don't like getting called out on your absurd rhetoric eh?
http://intensedebate.com/people/Ed_Sweeney Ed_Sweeney

I see, you read a whole bunch of things into what I said, like references to Obama, I call you on it, and you tell me what I really thought.

Sorry, the observation I made all along had to do with Pearson's confused notion that we need game-changers who go for the impossible, look at my examples. Your failure to comprehend what I said and your projection of things I never said is your failure.
Katherine

Ignatieff isn't Obama. Liberals don't seem to have figured that out. He's not inspirational, he doesn't have anything game changing, and he's in this for power. The timing of his return tells us very clearly that he came back to Canada for one reason: he wants to run it. That's not a vision to inspire people with.

Given that Ignatieff is, in policy terms, not extremely different from Harper, it's hard to understand claims that he could be a "game-changer".

Out There

I think that Ignatieff in this because he has some vague notion that he ought to perform public service. It's a bit woolly-headed, but you can't fault the motive.

I find it fascinating that many of Ignatieff's detractors accuse him of only being in politics for the power, and that many of Harper's detractors are saying exactly the same thing. My biggest problem with Harper is that he appears to be placing Party over Country – or, alternatively, believing that Party and Country are one and the same. The GST reduction is an example of this – it put the country in a fiancial hole, but it scored points with swing voters.

This is like trying to make your child like you by serving him or her pizza and ice cream for dinner every day.